Just Because a Woman Puts a Penis in Her Mouth Doesn’t Mean She Consented, Says College Sex Expert

?"If you go in somebody’s dorm room and she touches you, and places your penis in her mouth, she has not conveyed consent."
?
An educational consultant who advises students expelled from their colleges for sexual misconduct described a real-life circumstance in which one of her clients was found to not have obtained affirmative consent from a sexual partner, even though the alleged victim had initiated sex by placing his penis in her mouth.

?In a piece for Tablet Magazine published this week, Kat Rosenfield highlighted an October exchange from the popular Radiolab podcast between Kaitlin Prest, a sex-positive ?feminist and podcast producer who often discusses the issue of consent, and educational consultant Hanna Stontland.

During a segment titled "In the No," Stontland and Prest discussed many of the hoarier questions that surround the consent debate, particularly the "gray zone" areas of the issue: The ?myriad ?cases that involve a woman expressing regret over a sexual encounter with a man, but where it's not clear whether she was truly victimized.

During the conversation, Prest, a steadfast supporter of requiring men to obtain affirmative consent from women without exception, was resistant to Stontland's skepticism about the idea that affirmative consent is a salve for the many complications that arise from modern day hookup culture.

Stontland attempted to get Prest to reconsider her unflagging support for affirmative consent as a cure-all by introducing several real-life counterexamples that muddled the issue.

She discussed the case of a recent client suspended from school for two years, even though he had obtained affirmative consent, because his sexual partner claimed the affirmative consent she'd given was produced under duress.

And perhaps most striking was the story Stontland related involving a girl who initiated oral sex with another of her clients but never gave a verbal "yes": "If you go in somebody’s dorm room and she touches you, and places your penis in her mouth, she has not conveyed consent," she said.

Tablet's Rosenfield argued that the current fixation on affirmative consent promoted by many feminists is in fact ?damaging to the same women the movement seeks to defend.
?
?"But if your goal is to protect women at all costs from feeling bad about their choices—because you don’t think they can handle it, and they probably don’t know what they want anyway—then we already have a word for that," she wrote.

"It’s not feminism. It’s paternalism. And it denies women a fundamental if unglamorous freedom: to not just make decisions, but to live with and learn from the consequences of their less-than-great ones."

She obviously gave consent to oral sex, but not necessarily anything else. I dated a woman who was willing to participate in a number of sexual activities, but insisted on remaining a penis-in-vagina virgin until she was married. Same way consent to piv sex is not consent to anal.

It’s not feminism. It’s paternalism. And it denies women a fundamental if unglamorous freedom: to not just make decisions, but to live with and learn from the consequences of their less-than-great ones

Tell that to Harvey Weinstein's victims.

They consented to having business meetings with him; but not that kind of 'business'.

So, she started said sexual activity, yet her consent is the one in the doubt? You fucking kidding me? And the only reason people apparently should have a problem with this is because it might harm women? Really? Looking at this, and the recent case of that student being kicked out of university for "harassment", when it was he who was being aggressively pursued by a drunk female student, it's getting quite funny to see radfems moan about how they can't possibly be sexist because they don't have any power to discriminate against men.

I'm afraid you've misread my comment? I was pointing out that it's completely ridiculous to doubt the consent of someone who started a sexual activity, instead of their partner. If she really was the one who started it, as it was mentioned in the article, then it's the guy she did it with whose consent can be doubted, not her. She obviously wanted at least something, the guy may have or may not have. And yet, it's her whose consent is immediately being doubted by this person? Really?

I'd say she has conveyed consent to having a penis in her mouth. Period.

The interesting question here is why do so many women (supposedly) regret their sexual encounters with men, or feel bad about their sexual choices?
Could it be that in some patriarchal societies, women are seen as sluts if they enjoy sex? Who wants to see themselves as sluts?

Most raped people never report the rape at all, as most reports are just dismissed with no investigation whatsoever, so why bother?